XML

[Roman Suzi]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Alan Kennedy wrote:

>Roman Suzi wrote:
>
>> I have a feeling that XML steadily moves out of buzz-word set into
>> usual life. But along with this I have a feeling that XML is not as
>> useful as it was presented during it's hype period. I myself have
>> not found any use for it. There is always something more practical
>> than XML.
>
>I think that there are some important areas where XML can, does and will
>continue to make an impact, apart from the obvious usability in data
>interchange.
>
>One example is the portability of technical knowledge that comes about
>for people who use markup. Take javascript: 

Good point, but it is not directly related to what I am doing.

>Of course the point remains that XML is hugely resource inefficient for
>many problems. But maybe in 5 years we'll have so many terahertz and
>gigabytes 

Well, when XML was entering the arena, it promised to _lessen_
the burden on telecommunications... Where is that claim now?

And one more point: processing of XML is much less
reliable than that of ASCII or even simple Python literals.
The reliablity is what worries me more. It's too easy to get into some
trap (I remember talks here or in XML-SIG when it was discussed
what is better None or "" for representing namespace).

>and megabits-per-sec that we won't care. Just this week, I was

>On the python side, I believe that, although javascript is custom
>designed for manipulating markup data structures, python is the best
>natural fit for such data structures. Python's combined simplicity and
>power in manipulating sets, sequences and mappings makes it a very
>natural fit for XML (and indeed general data) processing. I wouldn't be
>surprised if Python, or something very close to it, shows up as a
>compulsory subject for school kids sometime in the next ten years. And
>of course, python was what cured me from my irrational desire to
>represent everything in XML %-)

So far all arguments pro-XML in this thread are like "XML is good because X, M
and L are already here" (be it SGML, javascript, Java, developers expertise or
whatever). But I wonder if there are pure technical merits of XML itself apart
from it being involved. XML is not well-based scientifically (like RDBMS), and
I have not seen any usability tests about it. It is just a simpler sibling of
SGML (and SGML is monstrous). Have you ever seen Fortran or Cobol? I can't
imaging subsetting them will make good programming language...

So, my understanding of XML is that it is like CSV format for a relational 
DBMS table:

XML for ? is like CSV for a RDBMS

However, I have no idea what the question stands for...

Sincerely yours, Roman Suzi
-- 
rnd at onego.ru =\= My AI powered by GNU/Linux RedHat 7.3